email me by using the rocket above or see:

How  to reach me

’79: Rudasill in Kentucky, page 2

Ball’s questions and argument in Rudasill were, as usual, memorable.  Combs’ cross-examination let me slip in much good evidence, and the judge’s questions and comments helped strengthen our case as well.  I was prepared to seize the opportunities because I had been immersed for months, for various reasons, in research and argument on the issues at hand.  The only adequate preparation for courtroom testimony, I’d say, is over-preparation.  Courtrooms are full of surprises.

I testified in Rudasill that the three-volume Kentucky regulations, though not as ludicrously specific as Ohio’s at issue in Whisner (see examples), were woefully vague. Kentucky’s regulations also exhibited great examples of bad English, as publications of state departments of education often do, like a statement demanding “profusion for a high degree of self-direction” by students.

I argued, providing examples, that “this general thrust of trying to impose standards, rules of thumb which someone thinks are linked to quality, could as easily make schools worse as make them better,” and that “[I]f anybody wants to know whether a school is producing what the State feels entitled to demand, we could easily taste the pudding by means of tests and other devices without fussing so much about the recipe.”  It is arguable, I believe, that most potions imposed on U. S. schools by state government have been harmful.

In Frankfort’s picturesque Franklin County courthouse, the trial court took substantially the position I had stated.  So did the Kentucky Supreme Court on appeal: “If the legislature wishes to monitor the work of private and parochial schools in accomplishing the constitutional purpose of compulsory education, it may do so by an appropriate standardized achievement testing program.”   Both courts said the regulations violated fundamental rights guaranteed by the Kentucky constitution, which allowed the state to require attendance at some school preparing children for citizenship, but left the choice of a school to parents.

Rudasill was singled out by William Bentley Ball (in the name of its trial court location, “Frankfurt”) as one of several cases he thought I “turned into victories.”  (See his letter in Photocopies.)  Working with Ball was a highlight of my career.  Many once-oppressed Christian groups have reason to rise up and call him blessed.

<Previous (Rudasill)  1  2  next (Bangor page 1)> 

(or select  from the links at left or top of page)

Copyright © 2004 Donald Erickson

Published with the assistance of IEW Systems